Jewish Peace News (JPN) is an information service that circulates news clippings, analyses, editorial commentary, and action alerts concerning the Israel / Palestine conflict. We work to promote a just resolution to the conflict; we believe that the cause of both peace and justice will be served when Israel ends the occupation, withdrawing completely from the Palestinian territories and finding a solution to the Palestinian refugee crisis within the framework of international law.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

This opinion piece discusses what is perhaps the most significant psychological mechanism acting to help make the Jewish community support Israel's occupation: the fear of collective annihilation. Seth Freedman argues that a culture of fear like this has a life of its own, independent of whether it is grounded in something real, and, indeed, has a tendency to create objects of fear where there are none. Of course this psychology is very much in the interests of those who seek to perpetuate the occupation and who encourage this culture of fear. Thus, a people as victimized, oppressed, dispossessed and essentially powerless as the Palestinians under occupation is magnified into a monster that threatens the existence of a nuclear-armed state. This is a neat argument, and explains, for instance, the disproportionate hysteria over the Qassam rocket attacks.

While it is fairly easy to use blunt geopolitical reasoning explain the motivations behind the occupation, it is always more difficult to explain why so many Jews in Israel and around the world support such cruelty. Analyses such as this go a long way towards such an explanation.

Culture of Fear: History has handed the Jewish people the fear of annihilation on a plate – but while the fear exists, what is feared may not

This morning I was invited to speak to a group of senior aid workers who are keen to approach both the Israeli and diaspora Jewish communities with their latest campaign. They are, understandably, apprehensive about the best way to proceed, given the minefield that exists under the feet of anyone seeking to criticise elements of Israel's policies.

We talked about the most effective way to open people's eyes to the reality of the occupation, in order to bring home the truth of what is being perpetrated in the name of Israel's security. Given the volte face that I've performed since moving to Israel four years ago, I was asked to describe my most influential experience thus far, in terms of providing a catalyst to the political journey upon which I've embarked.

Without hesitation, I replied that it had been my illicit trip to Bethlehem during a weekend furlough from the army. Our unit was serving in the city at the time, and – until then – I had been conditioned to see the residents as potential terrorists who had to be dealt with accordingly in order to avert a deadly threat to our safety.

With no M16 by my side or grenade in my pack, I passed through the checkpoint and took my first tentative steps on so-called enemy terrain. In jeans and a T-shirt, I walked the same streets of the Aida refugee camp that a day earlier I'd been patrolling armed to the teeth and with five other soldiers backing me up.

I gazed casually at the same windows and doors at which I'd previously had to stare, hawk-like, in case a gunman or bomber should burst out and attack our squad. I looked calmly at the same gangs of youths who, when I was in uniform, I'd had to judge in an instant – whether they were benignly intentioned or baying for my blood.

The fear instilled in me by the army all but dissipated once I was simply a tourist strolling through the town. Conversely, the more weaponry and protective gear I carried, the more terrifying the place became which, it dawned on me, was a distillation of Israel's core and eternal paradox – one that has dogged it since the moment the state was created.

For there to be a justification for Israel's existence, there first has to exist an existential threat to the Jewish people. Granted, history has handed us that fear of annihilation on a plate, but just because the fear exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that what is feared does too.

A prominent narrative of the Jewish tradition is that, in every generation, a manifestation of Amalek will attempt to wipe out the Jewish people, just as the original marauding Amalekites did during the Jews' exodus from Egypt. The Romans, Babylonians, Greeks, Soviets and Nazis have all, understandably, been christened modern-day Amalekites – and now Iran is being touted as the most recent member of the millennia-old dynasty.

Fear of extermination is the ace in the Jewish pack of emotions, and has been capitalised on in spades by the virulent strain of nationalism encapsulated in today's Zionism. Occupy an entire people and crush their hopes and dreams for 40 years? A necessary evil – if we don't then we're done for. Fly in the face of international law, basic morality, and even the central tenets of our own, ostensibly compassionate, religion? Sorry, but you have to understand that "they" all want us dead; it's us or them, from now until eternity.

It's almost irrelevant who "they" are. One day it's the Palestinians for daring to try to shake off the yoke of oppression; the next it's the European left for having the nerve to intercede on behalf of justice and decency. "They" can be a lone gunman, such as Norman Finkelstein or "they" can be a billion people, such as the world's entire Muslim population, conveniently repackaged as one homogenous group based on spurious racial profiling.

Concrete walls are built between "us" and "them"; orders are given banning Israelis from crossing the divide into PA territory – all under the banner of protecting the security of Israelis. In reality, however, they are merely an insidious attempt to hermetically seal Israel off from the outside world and convince the Israelis that it's an unavoidable measure to take.

Those of us who've come, seen, and conquered our preconceptions of the Palestinian street know full well that the canards being propagated are simply preposterous. Of course, there are some very angry, very violent militants among the Palestinian people, but so too are there similarly dangerous elements in Israeli society, as well as in every ethnic group around the world.

The reaction amongst my Israeli friends when they hear of my trips to Jenin, Ramallah or Bethlehem is usually one of abject horror that I even set foot inside the cities, let alone met the locals and visited them in their homes. "They'd kill you if they knew you were Jewish," they cry, utterly convinced that a Palestinian wolf lies behind every refugee camp door. The truth is far different, of course; almost everyone I meet knows I am both Jewish and Israeli, and – thus far – I've been neither beaten, beheaded nor bludgeoned to death.

It's totally understandable why the mythology and misconceptions flourish unchecked amongst the Israeli man on the street, or in the diaspora Jewish community. In the vacuum left by enforced separation between Jews and Palestinians, rampant fabrication runs riot, and fiction becomes truth in the minds of the masses. It's also understandable that the government encourages and promotes such fairy tales, in order to garner support for their never ending policies of irredentism and subjugation.

But just because it's understandable doesn't make it in any way acceptable. Morals and ethics are crushed under the wheels of the nationalist juggernaut, and what would be entirely unpalatable in any other circumstance becomes not only tolerated by society, but actively encouraged by the Israeli electorate and their cheerleaders around the world.

By continuing to provoke and bully the Palestinians, they create what they fear. Another generation branded Amalekites: another reason for Israelis to circle the wagons, batten down the hatches, and convince themselves that it is simply their lot to be eternally hated and reviled. And no amount of well-intentioned pressure can ever be sufficient to penetrate the calcified layer of mistrust between the Jewish people and the outside world.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Largely unnoticed or relatively marginalized by major news channels, a cease-fire between Hamas in Gaza and Israel came into effect last week. Gideon Levy's position piece from Haaretz (Sunday, June 22) calls attention to the dismissive, negative interpretation of this development by Israeli functionaries, with Israel's press following suite. While focused on Israeli responses, the existence of this piece also illuminates the type of, or lack of, attention paid to the cease-fire in prominent media worldwide. As Levy writes of Israel, elsewhere too, "The outbreak of war is received … with a great deal more sympathy and understanding, not to say enthusiasm, than a cease-fire."

Levy reiterates the deep-running militarization driving the official Israeli response, "when the all-clear is sounded … we are all worried. That says something about society's sick face: Quiet is muck, war is the most important thing."

Advocating the release of Palestinian prisoners and reframing this prospective step as well as "lifting the terrible siege on Gaza" as "an Israeli achievement, not only a Palestinian one," Levy outlines the possible positive dynamic that a few months of quiet might allow; "a Palestinian government of national unity … a real and not virtual partner, the representative of the entire Palestinian people and not half of it. … An agreement [that] will not be an agreement of puppets."

However, he warns, this process will only stand a chance if Israel extends the cease-fire agreement to the West Bank as well as Gaza. In resisting its extension, Israel, he writes, is clearly telling the Palestinians: "You want calm in the West Bank? Please fire Qassams at Kfar Sava, too." His concluding rhetorical question proposes that this, in fact, is what the militarized Israeli security establishment and state are seeking, given their consistent choice to prioritize the use of force and war.

A great disaster has suddenly come upon Israel: The cease-fire has gone into effect. Cease-fire, cease-Qassams, cease-assassiations, at least for now. This good, hopeful news was received in Israel dourly, gloomily, even with hostility. As usual, politicians, the military brass and pundits went hand in hand to market the cease-fire as a negative, threatening and disastrous development.

Even from the people who forged the agreement - the prime minister and defense minister - you heard not a word about hope; just covering their backsides in case of failure. No one spoke of the opportunity, everyone spoke of the risk, which is fundamentally unfounded. Hamas will arm? Why of all times during the cease-fire? Will only Hamas arm? We won`t? Perhaps it will arm, and perhaps it will realize that it should not use armed force because of calm`s benefits.

It is hard to believe: The outbreak of war is received here with a great deal more sympathy and understanding, not to say enthusiasm, than a cease-fire. When the warmongers get started, our unified tom-toms drum out only encouraging messages; when the all-clear is sounded, when people in Sderot can sleep soundly, even if only for a short time, we are all worried. That says something about society`s sick face: Quiet is muck, war is the most important thing.

Even before the cease-fire was attained, everyone was raising the blackest of black scenarios: The agreement will not hold, it will be broken immediately, Hamas will arm, Israel has given in. Not one of these assumptions is necessarily reality. Not one prophet of doom could suggest a better alternative to the cease-fire, except more and more unnecessary bloodshed on both sides.

Calm will be maintained only if it is a prelude to further positive developments; therefore, more than anything, calm needs the tailwind of goodwill and constructive statements, not destructive ones. If we continue being so dour, the pessimism will fulfill itself. Much depends on us.

Hamas wants the calm because it serves its goals. That is not necessarily bad for Israel. A few months of quiet and the lifting of the terrible siege on Gaza could create a new reality. Noam Shalit`s protest is understandable, but the new atmosphere of calm is precisely the time to finally secure the release of his son Gilad and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners - two positive developments for the two peoples.

Yes, the zero-sum game between us and them ended long ago. It is a shame we are the only ones not to have internalized it. And yes, even the release of Palestinian prisoners, a step always presented on our side as a `price,` can be an Israeli achievement, not only a Palestinian one. A new and somewhat better life in Gaza will assure a new life for Israel, too. It is not for nothing that the days when the fence was breached between Gaza and Egypt were the quietest days the Negev had known in two years.

In the wake of the cease-fire, a Palestinian government of national unity may arise and be a real and not virtual partner, the representative of the entire Palestinian people and not half of it. True, Hamas will not quickly abandon its hard-line positions, but under the aegis of a unity government it may surprise people, at least in a passive way. An agreement with such a government will not be an agreement of puppets between Ramallah and Jerusalem, the one known as the `shelf agreement.` If it is attained, it will be a real agreement. The cease-fire has already proven that not only is Israel willing to negotiate with Hamas, Hamas is willing to negotiate with Israel. Is this not good news?

If I were prime minister, the kind that believes that without a two-state solution Israel cannot continue to exist, as Ehud Olmert has declared, I would do everything to extend the cease-fire immediately to the West Bank. It is not at all clear why the attainment of calm in Gaza, without extending it to the West Bank, is considered an achievement for Israel. An achievement? A disaster. As long as calm is not achieved in the West Bank, calm in Gaza will totter. In Gaza they will not be able to keep quiet over violent acts by Israel in the West Bank. Is that the reason Israel does not want to extend the cease-fire?

The very thought that has taken root among us, that calm is surrender, should be rethought. Is our strength only in assassinations? Are we headed only toward bloodshed? The opposition to extending the cease-fire to the West Bank also shows, again, that Israel only understands the language of force: It will agree to calm in the West Bank only after Qassams are fired from there as well. What message does that send the Palestinians? You want calm in the West Bank? Please fire Qassams at Kfar Sava, too.

So this about something much deeper than only a cease-fire. This is about Israel`s image. The negative Israeli response to the cease-fire once again raises a deep suspicion: Perhaps Israel actually does not want peace?

Monday, June 23, 2008

This analysis by Phyllis Bennis is noteworthy because it reinforces the point that both Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappe made in an article posted recently on JPN (http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/2008/06/chomsky-and-pappe-on-future-of-israel.html): criticisms of Israeli policies are becoming more visible and more acceptable. She credits both the work of Jimmy Carter as well as the grassroots work of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation. This is certainly encouraging news, and good reason to keep up the work of organizing on this issue.

We are in the midst of the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the nakba, the Arabic word for "catastrophe," which is how Palestinians describe the events if 1947-49. During that time 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homeland in what Israelis celebrate as the "war of independence." They were never, despite the requirements of international law and UN resolutions that Israel agreed to implement, allowed to go home.

The nakba has been commemorated every year since. Certainly the usual triumphalism of the AIPAC conference, with its annual parade of politicians making obeisance to Israeli occupation and apartheid policies did not change. But outside of AIPAC, what was different this year was that the massive media coverage of the overall celebration of the Israeli anniversary and the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship" actually acknowledged and gave voice to the nakba as a legitimate component of the narrative. Certainly the mainstream press did not give equal voice to Palestinian suffering or Palestinian rights, but there was a visible and audible breach in the once-unchallenged triumphalism of Israel's creation. There was widespread recognition that Palestinian voices had to be heard, and the recognition included all three components of the divided Palestinian nation - Palestinian refugees in their far-flung diaspora, those living under occupation in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, andPalestinian citizens of Israel. AIPAC and Israel are no longer the sole proprietors of the Israel-Palestine narrative in the U.S.

Significantly, the change in discourse was powerful enough to reach UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon, who has consistently endorsed Washington's efforts to protect Israel from being held accountable for its violations of international law. The same day Ban called the Israeli prime minister to congratulate him on the 60 anniversary, he also called Palestinian Authority president to express his support for the Palestinian people after 60 years of the nakba. That announcement was enough to cause Israel's deputy ambassador to the United Nations to demand that the word nakba be banned from the UN, complaining that the very term nakba "is a tool of Arab propaganda used to undermine the legitimacy of the establishment of the State of Israel, and it must not be part of the lexicon of the UN."

The shift in discourse is huge, reflecting the massive change in public discussion of this issue that has been underway for the past year or more. Former president Jimmy Carter, both in his book's using "apartheid" to describe Israeli policy towards Palestine, and in his courageous decision to meet with Hamas officials in defiance of U.S.- Israeli efforts to isolate Gaza and the Islamist organization, has played a huge part. So has the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation - a coalition of more than 250 organizations whose recent "Expressions of Nakba" art competition brought in more than 300 entries from around the world. According to the Campaign's advocacy director, Josh Ruebner, "Israel's effort to ban the use of the word nakba at the UN is an act of desperation. They are obviously incredibly threatened by the precariousness of their international standing. So we should view this attempt as a victory for us in our efforts to delegitimize its policies." (I urge people togo to the Campaign website - www.endtheoccupation.org - and take a look at the incredible photos of the nakba commemoration including the "mobile billboard" that circled the Washington DC celebration of Israel's anniversary and the AIPAC conference...)

The discourse has also widened on the still difficult but much less contentious debate over one state or two states. The one-state view (transforming what is now Israel and the Palestinian territories into a single democratic and secular or bi-national state based on one person-one vote) remains a minority position. But there is growing realization that the continuing U.S.-supported expansion of Israeli settlements, land confiscations and the apartheid wall are about to or have already rendered a viable two-state option impossible. The two-state/one-state debate is increasingly part of mainstream Palestinian, international, and even some Israeli discourse. And the mere existence of the debate has helped in the process of transforming the discourse on the entire "question of Palestine."

(Full disclosure: I continue to believe that the role of non-Palestinian supporters of Palestinian rights in the U.S. should focus on changing U.S. policy away from support for Israel's occupation and apartheid policies, and towards a policy supporting an end to occupation and equal rights for all - with full equality both within and between the one, two or six states chosen by Palestinians and Israelis themselves. That is the position of the U.S. Campaign to End Israeli Occupation, which I continue to serve on the steering committee. But my own personal view, throughout 30 years of working on this issue, is that a democratic, secular democratic state with equal rights for all has always represented a far more just solution for Palestinians, Israelis and everyone else.)

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. Her latest books include Iran in the Crosshairs: How to Avoid Washington's Next War.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

In this particularly lucid geopolitical analysis, Ali Abunimah enumerates some of the regional benefits of the Bush administration's lame duck status

Until recently, the administration's belligerent policy towards Iran had led it to refuse to allow its clients to negotiate with any groups it considered allied to Iran, notably Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria. This policy has almost led to civil war both in Palestine and Lebanon, and has created a siege-like situation in Gaza. Recent attempts to negotiate local power-sharing arrangements in Lebanon, and particularly some tentative gestures made by Abbas as well as the new ceasefire in Gaza, have however been tacitly accepted by the administration. These are small but important steps to reducing or eliminating the most acute tensions in the area, and a national unity government in the West Bank and Gaza might be in a better position to end the siege imposed on Gaza by the Israeli, American and European governments. Speaking from the point of view of Palestinian liberation, Abunimah rightly concludes that it makes little sense to wait for the next US President or Israeli Prime Minister inthe hope of a significant change in direction. Nevertheless, those of us with a voice, and especially a Jewish voice, in the two countries have an obligation to try to bring about such a change, and a disproportionate chance of doing so compared to other groups.

This article was mostly written before the recent announcement of an official ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, but the ceasefire obviously fits into the pattern described above. Abunimah addresses this in a new article entitled "Rays of Hope from the Gaza Ceasefire" at: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9636.shtml

The waning of the Bush administration is having a marked impact on events in Palestine and the surrounding region. On the ground conditions are as difficult as ever; Palestinians are frequently injured and killed by Israeli forces as their land is seized. A few Israeli communities continue to face harassment, occasional injuries and rare fatalities due to armed attacks by Palestinian resistance groups. The humanitarian disaster caused by Israel's near total blockade on the civilian population in Gaza and severe restrictions in the West Bank is worsening.

Politically, however, the situation is in flux. As regional actors who staked all on support from the Bush administration now recognize how vulnerable this strategy has left them, they are trying their best to rearrange the political furniture and shore up their internal positions. Having failed to dislodge their rivals, U.S.-backed regimes are coming to terms with them. The direction of events points to an erosion of the U.S. effort to corral client states into an anti-Iran coalition anchored by Israel and Saudi Arabia and a realignment according to local interests and compromises.1

Fragile buds of political accommodation are sprouting. The major wild card is whether the Bush administration will allow the long, slow decline in its influence to continue, and these buds to flourish, or whether it may try to dramatically reengineer the situation by, among other things, attacking Iran or encouraging Israel to do so. The U.S. election campaign adds a further element of uncertainty as to whether the situation will continue to improve gradually or dramatically worsen over the next six months.

This briefing surveys some of the key developments with a particular focus on Palestine.

A Hamas-Fateh Thaw?

Earlier this year, a Palestine Center Information Brief noted a shift in attitudes towards Hamas in the wake of the failure of the U.S. efforts to isolate Gaza and eventually overthrow the Palestinian resistance movement, which won the January 2006 legislative elections. Hamas' resilience, including its breach of the border wall with Egypt in January, sparked a general reassessment of policy towards the group by various actors.2

In a dramatic shift earlier this month, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called for renewed dialogue with Hamas, apparently dropping his condition that the movement first relinquish control of the interior of the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip to his forces. A year ago, forces loyal to the democratically elected Hamas government took over the Gaza Strip, thwarting an attempted coup by U.S.-backed militias nominally loyal to Abbas's Fateh faction.3 Abbas, for his part, supported by the U.S. administration, had maintained that it was Hamas that carried out a "coup."

Many Palestinians consider national unity to be a prerequisite for an effective strategy against Israel's deepening occupation, blockade and settlement policies, and virtually none believe any peace agreement could be implemented without it.

Since angering the Bush administration by forming a national unity government with Hamas in early 2007, continued U.S. support has been conditioned on Abbas shunning Hamas, which the U.S. labels as "terrorist." Yet in contrast to its traditional position opposing contacts with Hamas, the White House pointedly declined to criticize Abbas's new opening.4

Hamas leaders, including the dismissed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, immediately welcomed Abbas's dialogue call. Within days, representatives of Hamas and Fateh took part in reconciliation talks convened by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade in his capacity as president of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In Gaza, Ahmed Yousef, a senior advisor to Haniyeh, reaffirmed Hamas' proposals, including the re-establishment of a national unity government; rebuilding Palestinian security forces "on the basis of proficiency" rather than factional loyalty; reforming the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] to include all Palestinian factions; respecting election results and power sharing; and the possibility of new elections.5

While Hamas' position favoring reconciliation has been reflected in statements from the highest echelons down to the movement's spokesmen, Abbas's entourage have sent contradictory signals. Unnamed "informed" Palestinian Authority sources told the media that Abbas was moved to act after the Israelis notified him they planned to invade Gaza, overthrow Hamas and hand the coastal territory over to Abbas's forces. The sources said that Abbas strenuously objected to these plans, would not ride into Gaza on the back of Israeli tanks and thus called for immediate reconciliation talks with Hamas in order to thwart the Israeli plan.6 This incredible claim appears intended to paint Abbas's move not as a climb down but as a patriotic act. By contrast, Abbas's aide Saeb Erekat asserted that "President Abbas' position has not changed," adding, "It is wrong to say that Abbas no longer calls for ending Hamas' coup to end the divisions."7 Other Fateh figures adopted competing interpretationsreflecting the divisions among Abbas's advisors, many of whose personal positions and patronage would be threatened by a return of the national unity government.

Abbas's opening towards Hamas is clearly the product of three interrelated factors: the failure of the peace negotiations re-launched by President Bush at Annapolis in November 2007; the loss of authority of the [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert government in Israel; and the loss of influence of the Bush administration.

The Failure of the Annapolis Process

Annapolis had been part of a U.S.-sponsored effort to boost the credibility of the Abbas leadership by showing it was engaged in serious negotiations which could deliver a final agreement on Palestinian statehood by the end of 2008.

Abbas bet his future on President Bush's emphatic personal pledge at Annapolis "to devote my effort during my time as President to do all I can to help you achieve this ambitious goal." The United States' commitment included acting as a judge that each side would keep to its various obligations and continuing to train security forces loyal to Abbas in coordination with Israel.

However, after meeting Bush in Washington in April, Abbas complained publicly that the U.S. had done nothing to pressure Israel to stop settlement construction on Palestinian land and had ignored key Palestinian concerns. In terms of negotiations, Abbas stated, "Frankly, so far nothing has been achieved."8 Bush further disappointed Palestinian officials when he failed to do anything to redress the imbalance in U.S. policy during his visit to Israel in May.

The director of the PLO's Negotiations Support Unit said in early June at a Palestine Center event that the peace talks had touched on all the key issues "without exception"—borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees—but that "We haven't reached any agreement yet. We haven't even drafted any papers yet." He added that the backsliding on peace talks was "undermining the credibility of the Palestinian leadership" of Abbas.

Israel's conception of a Palestinian state where it "maintain[s] control over air, land and sea borders," remains a far cry from the Palestinian one according to negotiators. And far from freezing settlement construction, Israel has been accelerating it; in the twelve months up to Annapolis, Israel had issued tenders for 138 housing units in the West Bank whereas 847 had been tendered in the six months after the summit. Israeli plans are underway for thousands more such units across the West Bank.9

It is therefore not surprising that Abbas's chief negotiator, Ahmed Qurai', declared just days before Abbas reached out to Hamas that it would take a "miracle" for the negotiations to reach an agreement by the end of the year.

Israeli Politics in Turmoil

Accelerating settlement construction has all but destroyed the credibility of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government as a serious peace interlocutor. But the government itself, a coalition of Olmert's Kadima party, the Labor party led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the religious Shas party among others, is not united even behind the hardline positions Israel has taken in the negotiations.

The universal consensus is that Olmert's departure is preordained; jockeying to replace him as head of his party is already underway, and the expectation is that national elections will occur within months. Politicians across the political spectrum have emphatically declared that Olmert does not have the authority or credibility to negotiate on behalf of Israel, and his continued participation in talks is seen as an attempt to buy time and distract from his latest corruption scandal.10 The coming electoral campaign, according to analyst Shaul Arieli, a former commander of Israeli occupation forces in the Gaza Strip and former Israeli negotiator, "is liable to cause most Israeli parties to adopt more extreme positions."11

There is simply no prospective Israeli coalition that is likely to be more forthcoming than even the current one, and therefore the chances of negotiations bridging the gaps between the minimalist Palestinian Authority position and Israeli demands remains negligible whether or not Olmert is replaced.

An Israeli-Palestinian Ceasefire

Breaking News: As this briefing was being prepared for publication, it was confirmed that a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip had been agreed by Israel and Palestinian factions, scheduled to begin on Thursday, June 19. The BBC reported, "This stage of the deal envisages a halt to hostilities and a partial reopening of Gaza's borders. A second stage of the plan would focus on the return of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and on a deal to reopen the main Rafah crossing into Egypt."12 The remainder of this section was prepared prior to this announcement.

In a violent rampage in early March, Israeli forces killed 110 Palestinians of whom half were civilians, including 27 children in a series of air and land attacks in the Gaza Strip. These attacks drew worldwide condemnation. In their wake, Israel and Hamas began ceasefire talks brokered by Egypt and others. The talks have yet to reach a conclusion and have stumbled over whether to include the West Bank and the exchange of prisoners.

In the meantime, Israel and resistance factions have maintained a de facto tahdi'a or "calming." Yet this is a somewhat deceptive term. Over 100 more Palestinians, including over 20 children and almost 30 other civilians have been killed in Israeli attacks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since early March. Hundreds of others have been injured, arrested or kidnapped by Israeli forces. In the first six months of 2008, Israeli forces killed almost 400 Palestinians, equaling the total death toll for 2007.13

Israeli officials assert that the massive violence perpetrated against Palestinian communities is intended to prevent rocket and mortar fire by Palestinian resistance factions from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Since the start of the year, four Israelis have been killed in such attacks according to the Associated Press.14

Hamas officials assert that all the resistance factions have agreed in principle to a ceasefire, but it is being held up by Israeli intransigence. In late April, Israel rejected a Hamas proposal for a six-month Gaza-only truce.15 Hamas officials believe that a ceasefire agreement is being held hostage to Israeli internal politics and rivalries.

Israeli leaders appear to understand that they cannot destroy Hamas militarily and cannot re-occupy the interior of the Gaza Strip without paying an unacceptably high price. Yet, they remain unwilling to grant Hamas the legitimacy they fear it would gain by agreeing a formal truce with it. In recent weeks, Israeli leaders have been openly discussing a major assault on Gaza. While this is always a possibility given Israel's brutal record, the current threats have the flavor of bluff for internal consumption or to influence the negotiations.16

Hamas' delivery of a letter from a captured Israeli soldier to his family, through the offices of former [U.S.] President [Jimmy] Carter, was a signal reaffirming Palestinian interest in reaching agreement. Haniyeh advisor, Ahmed Yousef, suggested that in response, Israel could release women and child prisoners it is holding as a reciprocal goodwill gesture.17 A formal truce remains achievable but not guaranteed; it depends on Israel accepting at last that it must deal with Hamas as a peer at least for the purpose of ending violence.

The Bush Administration and the Regional Context

In recent years, the Bush administration explicitly divided the region into "moderates" allied to or supported by the United States and "extremists," who are any movement or government opposing U.S. hegemony or policies in the region.

The U.S. has also attempted to portray local movements like Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine as mere pawns of regional rival Iran. The U.S. vigorously opposed allowing its clients to deal with "extremists" even though that brought countries including Palestine and Lebanon to the brink of civil war.

This "divide and rule" strategy has suffered several recent setbacks. The U.S.-backed Lebanese government and Hizballah-led opposition reconciled their differences and restored power-sharing under a Qatari-sponsored deal last month. Israel, apparently in defiance of U.S. wishes, resumed talks with Syria, brokered by Turkey, and Arab Gulf States have been pursuing a rapprochement with Iran.

As Israel continues to negotiate with Hamas, albeit indirectly, the movement has gained a measure of international stature. Two Nobel Prize winners, former President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu held high profile meetings with Hamas' leaders. In May, France's Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner admitted that a former French diplomat had held exploratory talks with Hamas. In reaction to Israeli anger, French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised the contacts would cease, but according to well-informed sources, contacts between Hamas and other European officials are continuing to develop though they have yet to lead to a fundamental change in relations.

These regional developments, as well as the potential Hamas-Fateh rapprochement, are further signs that the Bush doctrine may be losing sway.

Attack on Iran?

The dire consequences of an American or Israeli attack on Iran are incalculable not just for the region but for the world. Recent comments by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz that an attack on Iran was "unavoidable" caused a sharp spike in world oil markets and prompted the United States to emphasize its commitment to "diplomacy." The Israeli government distanced itself from Mofaz's comments and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency condemned them.18

Earlier this year, a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its quest for nuclear weapons, temporarily cooling talk of a military attack. But in recent months, speculation about an attack has escalated.

One line of argument says that U.S. elites are too divided and military commanders too opposed to such an attack, and that it is therefore unlikely.19 Another says that unreformed neoconservative hardliners in the administration, egged on by pro-Israel supporters, believe that it is 'now or never' in the remaining months of the Bush administration. Some neocons have argued that if Democratic Senator Barack Obama is elected president in November, the Bush administration would attack Iran in its remaining weeks. Obama has stated that he would negotiate with Iran under certain conditions.

As evidenced by the emphasis on Iran at the annual policy conference of AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], key pro-Israel groups are doing their best to heighten U.S. tensions with Iran, which has pushed the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to compete to be more hardline.20 Senator Hillary Clinton, for example, stated in the course of her campaign that the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran if it even considered attacking Israel.

Iran and its allies have taken some steps to reduce tensions; the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, emphasized that his country is not seeking nuclear weapons. In Lebanon, Hizballah, which receives support from Iran but is often wrongly portrayed by the U.S. and Israel as a mere extension of Iran, has emphasized it is not interested in war with Israel but would defend Lebanon if attacked. Israel recently freed a Lebanese captive while Hizballah delivered body parts of deceased Israeli soldiers to Israel.

All in all, a major conflagration in the region remains a palpable risk in the next six months but is most likely to be the result of Israeli or U.S. adventurism, provocation or at least failure to respond constructively to the openings being offered by their adversaries.

The U.S. Election and Palestine

While it is widely assumed that Republican nominee Senator John McCain would continue many Bush administration policies in the region, there is intense speculation among Palestinians and other commentators about whether Senator Barack Obama would take a less pro-Israeli approach. Obama has done his best to dampen such speculation by making hardline pro-Israel speeches, including a major address to AIPAC the day after he won enough delegates to secure his party's nomination.21 This speech elicited dismay among many Arab observers who had assumed that Obama—contrary to his stated positions—was actually pro-Palestinian. (In light of some of the inflated expectations of Obama, it is worth remembering that many observers in 2000 assumed Bush would be more favorable to the Palestinians than his Democratic rival).

Much analysis has persistently underestimated the extent to which every president is constrained by entrenched interests and party establishments and overestimated the extent to which Obama has been willing to challenge prevailing wisdom. He has, for example, emphatically endorsed the Bush administration policy of shunning Hamas. Like McCain and Bush, he is committed to a two-state paradigm that has been rendered irrelevant by the facts on the ground. What is likely to hurt the Palestinian cause most is not a Democratic victory or Republican loss or vice versa but the stunning lack of any serious discussion among U.S. policy elites of alternatives to the failed and outdated peace process paradigm.

In the best case, a new administration, even if it were committed to a fundamental revision of the U.S. policy (admittedly unlikely), will not be ready to engage until mid-2009. Events on the ground will not be static in the meantime. The worst mistake Palestinian leaders could make is to once again pin their hopes on any U.S. administration delivering a state to favored "moderates" instead of developing a broad-based, inclusive and principled vision for regaining Palestinian rights, underpinned by grassroots support and mobilization within Palestine and internationally.

Ali Abunimah is a fellow at the Palestine Center in Washington, DC. He is an expert on Palestine, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and is the author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. Abunimah also co-founded The Electronic Intifada, an online publication about Palestine and the Palestine-Israeli conflict, Electronic Iraq and Electronic Lebanon.

The views expressed in this information brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Adam Keller, spokesperson for Gush Shalom, translated this article from Yediot Aharonot, Israel's widest-read newspaper, from Hebrew, since it wasn't translated into English. His introductory note and the article are below.

Route 443 is one of the "apartheid roads" cut through the West Bank for Israeli drivers (as far as I know regardless of whether they are Jewish or Palestinian Israeli) to the exclusion of Palestinians. There have been ongoing popular protests in the West Bank against the road and the confiscation of lands that it causes, as well as a court case brought by Palestinians and ACRI (Association for Civil Rights in Israel).

As Adam Keller notes below, despite the prominence of the article in Yediot, it was not translated to English or posted on the popular YNet website. This seems to be part of a pattern of lack of willingness to air "dirty laundry" to an international audience. a

It is certainly notable that such a prominent member of the Israeli establishment is using the word "apartheid." It is also interesting that this judge seems to despair for now of the court system, in the end reminding Israelis of their individual responsibility to protest and not allow the Court to give them a reason to be "voluntarily blind."

--Rebecca Vilkomerson

Don't travel on Route 443The Apartheid Road - Silence of the Judges

By Boaz Okon

Yediot Aharonot, June 10, 2008

Boaz Okon is a prominent jurist, was a judge on the Jerusalem District Court and registrar of the Supreme Court, and since his resignation in 2006 is the juridical commentator of Yediot Aharonot. The following article appeared not only on the op-ed page, but also with a box, containing a summary, placed conspicuously on the paper's front page - which is quite exceptional. Exceptional in the opposite direction is the fact that this article, unlike many others of Okon's, was not included in the Y-net website nor translated to English. This I have decided to do myself.

Adam Keller

Box on Page 1 - entitled "Don't travel on Route 443"

There are acts for which in retrospect we would not be able to forgive ourselves. Moments for which we would ask ourselves how we could have been so stupid. Our Supreme Court is approaching such a moment. On its desk is the appeal against the decision of the Defense Minster to block to Palestinian traffic the part of Route 443 which goes through the West Bank, and allowing passage to Israelis only. The Defense Minster gave the order to create a network of alternative roads for the Palestinians, which came to be knows as the "Fabric of Life Roads". Which means: in the 1980's, a narrow village road was widened into a full-fledged inter-city highway, the present Route 443. In order to achieve that, the land of Palestinian villagers was confiscated; now, these villagers are forbidden to use that route, and face new confiscation of lands in order to have new routes, with a tempting and cynical names, created for their use. Had words been capable of dying of shame, the words "Fabric of Life Roads" would have died long ago.

Main article on the op-ed page - entitled "The Apartheid Road - Silence of the Judges"

There are acts for which in retrospect we would not be able to forgive ourselves. Moment for which we would ask ourselves how we could have been so stupid. In order to overcome our shame and confusion, we will try to find support in the claim that "things were different than" or that "that's the way everybody was thinking at the time" or with arguments of national security.

Such moments come also for elected institutions, legislatures and governments, which in stormy situations, out of righteousness or security hysteria, are passing laws or defining policies which afterwards could not possibly be explained. This also happens to courts, when they abandon their fundamental duty to uproot any manifestations of racism. Such a moment in the history of the US Supreme Court was, for example, the Dred Scott Case (1856). The court in this case decided that a Black person cannot be a citizen, since he belongs to an inferior race. Another such moment was the notorious ruling of Justice Holms (1927) approving a Virginia State law providing for the forced sterilization of retarded persons, since "Three generations of imbeciles are more than enough."

Now, our Supreme Court is also approaching closer to such a shameful moment. On its desk is the appeal lodged by ACRI (Association for Civil Rights) and by Palestinian villagers against the decision of the Defense Minster to block to Palestinian traffic on the part of Route 443 which goes through the West Bank (Modi'in - Jerusalem), and allowing passage to Israelis only. The Defense Minster gave the order to create a network of alternative roads for the Palestinians, which came to be knows as the "Fabric of Life Roads". All for reasons of security, of course.

Had words been capable of dying of shame, the words "Fabric of Life Roads" would have died long ago. In the 1980's, a narrow village road was widened into a full-fledged inter-city highway, the present Route 443; in order to achieve that, the land of Palestinian villagers was confiscated; now, these villagers are forbidden to use that route, and face new confiscation of lands in order to have new routes, supposedly aimed at their own good, with a tempting and cynical names, created for their use.

"Security" has been used, more than any other word, to justify acts of infamy. This word is like a suitcase with a false bottom, outwardly carrying a legitimate interest and in fact carrying a negative, illegal load.

For the time being, the Supreme Court ruled on March 3, 2008 not to deal with this appeal at all, and asked the Defense Minster to provide within six months information on the progress in construction of the "Fabric of Life Roads". This week, the court rejected a request by ACRI to hold a hearing on the subject anyway. In this way, the court in practice endorsed the decision of the Defense Minster, a decision which is leading us beyond the doorstep of Apartheid.

The rolling thunder of that decision is strong that no one can but hear it. The judicial backing of the Supreme Court serves as it powerful amplifier.

Sometimes, we prefer to become voluntarily blind, and rely on various bodies to take the decisions in our place. "It is a fact" we tell our conscience "that the judges have convened and took a decision, we are no longer personally responsible". Such a silencing of the conscience has a tendency to develop into a chronic disease, which through continuing erosion becomes a habit of obscuring even the most heinous of deeds.

Of course, the Supreme Court will continue to express its shock at individual act of discrimination ("An Arab was no allowed into the water park", "Ethiopians were not allowed to register their children at a Petach Tikva school") but will shrug at a comprehensive official policy which is systematically criminal.

So, what can we do? It is not always possible to rely on mass decisions, on institutions, on courts. It is possible to travel to Jerusalem by Route 1 only. ACRI should distribute stickers with text "I don't travel by Route 443" and all of us should avoid using this road until the evil decree is removed.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Veteran activists Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky recently responded to a set of questions about the state of the anti-occupation movement and the prospects for peace, and their answers are below. What comes across most clearly in these interviews is a shared assessment of the current situation (both persistently reject the interviewer's attempts at any great optimism) but divergent opinions about appropriate strategies for the anti-occupation movement.

One point they agree on is that the climate for raising criticisms of Israel has improved considerably, although both ideological and practical obstacles remain when it comes to translating this criticism into action. Pappe believes that a general boycott is the best way to overcome this, and Chomsky outlines some of his objections to such a strategy (although he is supportive of limited and targeted boycotts, of Caterpillar, Inc. for instance).

Chomsky has been a long-time opponent of the idea of a general boycott of Israel. He is as concerned as anyone about justice for the Palestinians, but argues that it is hypocritical to boycott Israel rather than the US, which is also to blame for the occupation (and much that is worse). And on a strictly tactical level, he argues that the strategy of boycott will backfire: there is a concerted and powerful movement in place that will 're-brand' all boycotting efforts as anti-Semitic attacks on victimized little Israel. The boycott against South Africa, for instance, never had to contend with this sort of opposition. Wherever you stand on the issue of boycott (and personally, I am torn), Chomsky's lucid and historically-informed views need at least to be taken into account.

Chomsky's own suggestion for activists seeking to bring about peace includes "democracy promotion" within the US. There is broad support in the US for a just resolution to the conflict, but this is blocked by various elites (the corporate sector, for instance) whose own interests (such as maximizing private profits) do not reflect interests of the majority of the people involved in the conflict.

Chomsky presents a very strong argument for why Americans need to take an active role in this issue: it is our problem, a symptom of our lack of democracy, and exacerbated by our corporations.

[ZNet Editors Note: Frank Barat sent a set of questions to Pappe and Chomsky, each independently. They sent back answers, again, independently. Neither saw and so of course neither made any reference to what the other had to say. They weren't ignoring each other. Rather, they were operating in isolation from one another.]

Barat: Thanks for accepting this interview. Firstly I would like to ask if you are working on something at the moment that you would like to let us know about?

Ilan Pappé: I am completing several books. The first is a concise history of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the other is on the Palestinian minority in Israel and one on the Arab Jews. I am completing an edited volume comparing the South Africa situation to that of Palestine

Noam Chomsky: The usual range of articles, talks, etc. No time for major projects right now.

Barat: A British M.P recently said that he had felt a change in the last 5 years regarding Israel. British M.Ps nowadays sign E.D.M (Early Day Motions) condemning Israel in bigger number than ever before and he told us that it was now easier to express criticism towards Israel even when talking on U.S campuses. Also, in the last few weeks, John Dugard, independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the U.N Human Right Council said that "Palestinian terror 'inevitable' result of occupation", the European parliament adopted a resolution saying that "policy of isolation of the Gaza strip has failed at both the political and humanitarian level" and the U.N and the E.U have condemned Israel use of excessive and disproportionate force in the Gaza strip. Could we interpret that as a general shift in attitude towards Israel?

Ilan Pappé: The two examples indicate a significant shift in public opinion and in the civil society. However, the problem remained what it had been in the last sixty years: these impulses and energies are not translated, and are not likely to be translated in the near future, into actual policies on the ground. And thus the only way of enhancing this transition from support from below to actual policies is by developing the idea of sanctions and boycott. This can give a clear orientation and direction to the many individuals and ngos that have shown for years solidarity with the Palestine cause.

Noam Chomsky: There has been a very clear shift in recent years. On US campuses and with general audiences as well. It was not long ago that police protection was a standard feature of talks at all critical of Israeli policies, meetings were broken up, audiences very hostile and abusive. By now it is sharply different, with scattered exceptions. Apologists for Israeli violence now tend often to be defensive and desperate, rather than arrogant and overbearing. But the critique of Israeli actions is thin, because the basic facts are systematically suppressed. That is particularly true of the decisive US role in barring diplomatic options, undermining democracy, and supporting Israel's systematic program of undermining the possibility for an eventual political settlement. But portrayal of the US as an "honest broker," somehow unable to pursue its benign objectives, is characteristic, not only in this domain.

Barat: The word apartheid is more and more often used by NGO's and charities to describe Israel's actions towards the Palestinians (in Gaza, the OPT but also in Israel itself). Is the situation in Palestine and Israel comparable to Apartheid South Africa?

Ilan Pappé: There are similarities and dissimilarities. The colonialist history has many chapters in common and some of the features of the Apartheid system can be found in the Israeli policies towards its own Palestinian minority and towards those in the occupied territories. Some aspects of the occupation, however, are worse then the apartheid reality of South Africa and some aspects in the lives of Palestinian citizens in Israel, are not as bad as they were in the hey days of Apartheid. The main point of comparison to my mind is political inspiration. The anti-Apartheid movement, the ANC, the solidarity networks developed throughout the years in the West, should inspire a more focused and effect pro-Palestinian campaign. This is why there is a need to learn the history of the struggle against Apartheid, much more than dwell too long on comparing the Zionist and Apartheid systems.

Noam Chomsky: There can be no definite answer to such questions. There are similarities and differences. Within Israel itself, there is serious discrimination, but it's very far from South African Apartheid. Within the occupied territories, it's a different story. In 1997, I gave the keynote address at Ben-Gurion University in a conference on the anniversary of the 1967 war. I read a paragraph from a standard history of South Africa. No comment was necessary.

Looking more closely, the situation in the OT differs in many ways from Apartheid. In some respects, South African Apartheid was more vicious than Israeli practices, and in some respects the opposite is true. To mention one example, White South Africa depended on Black labor. The large majority of the population could not be expelled. At one time Israel relied on cheap and easily exploited Palestinian labor, but they have long ago been replaced by the miserable of the earth from Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Israelis would mostly breathe a sigh of relief if Palestinians were to disappear. And it is no secret that the policies that have taken shape accord well with the recommendations of Moshe Dayan right after the 1967 war: Palestinians will "continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave." More extreme recommendations have been made by highly regarded left humanists in the United States, for example Michael Walzer of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton and editor of the democratic socialist journal Dissent, who advised 35 years ago that since Palestinians are "marginal to the nation," they should be "helped" to leave. He was referring to Palestinian citizens of Israel itself, a position made familiar more recently by the ultra-right Avigdor Lieberman, and now being picked up in the Israeli mainstream. I put aside the real fanatics, like Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who declares that Israel never kills civilians, only terrorists, so that the definition of "terrorist" is "killed by Israel"; and Israel should aim for a kill ratio of 1000to zero, which means "exterminate the brutes" completely. It is of no small significance that advocates of these views are regarded with respect in enlightened circles in the US, indeed the West. One can imagine the reaction if such comments were made about Jews.

On the query, to repeat, there can be no clear answer as to whether the analogy is appropriate.

Barat: Israel has recently said that it will boycott the U.N conference on Human Rights in Durban because "it will be impossible to prevent the conference from turning into a festival of anti-Israeli attacks" and has also cancelled a meeting with Costa Rican officials over the Central American nation's decision to formally recognize a Palestinian state. Is Israel's refusal to accept any sort of criticism towards its policies likely to eventually backfire?

Ilan Pappé: One hopes it will backfire one day. However, this depends on the global and regional balances of power, not only on the Israelis 'over reacting'. The two, namely the balance of power and Israel intransigence, may be interconnected in the future. If there is a change in America's policy, or in its hegemonic role in the politics of the region, then a continued Israeli inflexibility can encourage the international community to adopt a more critical position against Israel and exert pressure on the Jewish state to end the occupation and dispossession of Palestine

Noam Chomsky: One can agree or disagree with these decisions, but they do not imply "refusal to accept any sort of criticism towards its policies." I doubt that these particular decisions will backfire, or will even receive much notice.

Barat: How can Israel reach a settlement with an organization which declares that it will never recognize Israel and whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state? If Hamas really wants a settlement, why won't it recognize Israel?

Ilan Pappé: Peace is made between enemies not lovers. The end result of the peace process can be a political Islamic recognition in the place of the Jews in Palestine and in the Middle East as a whole, whether in a separated state or a joint state. The PLO entered negotiations with Israel without changing its charter, which is not that different as far as the attitude to Israel, is concerned. So the search should be for a text, solution and political structure that is inclusive - enabling all the national, ethnic, religious and ideological groups to coexist

Noam Chomsky: Hamas cannot recognize Israel any more than Kadima can recognize Palestine, or than the Democratic Party in the US can recognize England. One could ask whether a government led by Hamas should recognize Israel, or whether a government led by Kadima or the Democratic Party should recognize Palestine. So far they have all refused to do so, though Hamas has at least called for a two-state settlement in accord with the long-standing international consensus, while Kadima and the Democratic Party refuse to go that far, keeping to the rejectionist stance that the US and Israel have maintained for over 30 years in international isolation. As for words, when Prime Minister Olmert declares to a joint session of the US Congress that he believes "in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land," to rousing applause, he is presumably referring not only to Palestine from the Jordan to the sea, but also to the other side of the Jordan river, the historic claim of theLikud Party that was his political home, a claim never formally abandoned, to my knowledge. On Hamas, I think it should abandon those provisions of its charter, and should move from acceptance of a two-state settlement to mutual recognition, though we must bear in mind that its positions are more forthcoming than those of the US and Israel.

Barat: During the last few months, Israel has accentuated its attacks on Gaza and is talking of an imminent ground invasion, there is also a strong possibility that it is involved in the killing of the Hezbollah leader Mughniyeh and it is pushing for stronger sanctions (including military) on Iran. Do you believe that Israel's appetite for war could eventually lead to its self destruction?

Ilan Pappé: Yes, I think that the aggressiveness is increasing and Israel antagonizes not only the Palestinian world, but also the Arab and Islamic ones. The military balance of power, at present, is in Israel's presence, but this can change at any given moment, especially once the US withdrew its support.

Noam Chomsky: I wrote decades ago that those who call themselves "supporters of Israel" are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction. I have also believed for many years that Israel's very clear choice of expansion over security, ever since it turned down Sadat's offer of a full peace treaty in 1971, may well lead to that consequence.

Barat: What would it take for the U.S to withdraw its unconditional support to Israel?

Ilan Pappé: Externally: a collapse of its Middle East policy, mainly through the downfall of one of its allies. Alternatively, but less likely, the emergence of a counter European policy. Internally: a major economic crisis and the success of the present coalition of forces working within the civil society to impact such a change.

Noam Chomsky: To answer that, we have to consider the sources of the support. The corporate sector in the US, which dominates policy formation, appears to be quite satisfied with the current situation. One indication is the increasing flow of investment to Israel by Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and other leading elements of the high-tech economy. Military and intelligence relations remain very strong. Since 1967, US intellectuals have had a virtual love affair with Israel, for reasons that relate more to the US than to Israel, in my opinion. That strongly affects portrayal of events and history in media and journals. Palestinians are weak, dispersed, friendless, and offer nothing to concentrations of power in the US. A large majority of Americans support the international consensus on a two-state settlement, and even call for equalizing aid to Israel and the Palestinians. In this as in many other respects, both political parties are well to the right of the population. 95% of the US population think that the government should pay attention to the views of the population, a position rejected across the elite spectrum (sometimes quite explicitly, at other times tacitly). Hence one step towards a more even-handed stance would be "democracy promotion" within the US. Apart from that eventuality, what it would take is events that lead to a recalculation of interests among elite sectors.

Barat: CounterPunch featured an interesting debate on the 1 state vs 2 states solution last month. It started with a Michael Neumann article saying that "the one state solution was an illusion" and was followed by articles from Assaf Kfoury entitled "One-State or Two-State?" - A Sterile Debate on False Alternatives" and Jonathan Cook entitled "One state or two, neither, the issue is Zionism". What's your opinion on this and do you think that in view of the "facts on the ground" (settlements, bypass roads...) created by Israel a 2 state solution is still possible?

Ilan Pappé: The facts on the ground had rendered a two states solution impossible a long time ago. The facts indicated that there was never and will never be an Israeli consent to a Palestinian state apart from a stateless state within two Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza totally under Israeli control. There is already one state and the struggle is to change its nature and regime. Whether the new regime and constitutional basis would be bi-national or democratic, or maybe even both, is less significant at this point. Any political outfit that would replace the present racist state of affairs is welcome. Any such outfit should also enable the refugees to return and even the most recent immigrants to remain.

Noam Chomsky: We have to make a distinction between proposal and advocacy. We can propose that everyone should live in peace. It becomes advocacy when we sketch out a realistic path from here to there. A one-state solution makes little sense, in my opinion, but a bi-national state does. It was possible to advocate such a settlement from 1967 to the mid-1970s, and in fact I did, in many writings and talks, including a book. The reaction was mostly fury. After Palestinian national rights entered the international agenda in the mid-1970s, it has remained possible to advocate bi-nationalism (and I continue to do so), but only as a process passing through intermediate stages, the first being a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. That outcome, probably the best that can be envisioned in the short term, was almost reached in negotiations in Taba in January 2001, and according to participants, could have been reached had the negotiations not been prematurelyterminated by Israeli Prime Minister Barak. That was the one moment in the past 30 years when the two leading rejectionist states did briefly consider joining the international consensus, and the one time when a diplomatic settlement seemed within sight. Much has changed since 2001, but I do not see any reason to believe that what was apparently within reach then is impossible today.

It is of some interest, and I think instructive, that proposals for a "one-state solution" are tolerated within the mainstream today, unlike the period when advocacy was indeed feasible and they were anathema. Today they are published in the New York Times, New York Review of Books, and elsewhere. One can only conclude that they are considered acceptable today because they are completely unfeasible -- they remain proposal, not advocacy. In practice, the proposals lend support to US-Israeli rejectionism, and undermine the only feasible advocacy of a bi-national solution, in stages.

Today there are two options for Palestinians. One is US-Israeli abandonment of their rejectionist stance, and a settlement roughly along the lines of what was being approached at Taba, The other option is continuation of current policies, which lead, inexorably, to incorporation into Israel of what it wants: at least, Greater Jerusalem, the areas within the Separation Wall (now an Annexation Wall), the Jordan Valley, and the salients through Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel and beyond that effectively trisect what remains, which will be broken up into unviable cantons by huge infrastructure projects, hundreds of check points, and other devices to ensure that Palestinians live like dogs.

There are those who believe that Palestinians should simply let Israel take over the West Bank completely and then carry out a civil rights/anti-Apartheid style struggle. That is an illusion, however. There is no reason why the US-Israel would accept the premises of this proposal. They will simply proceed along the lines now being implemented, and will not accept any responsibility for Palestinians who are scattered outside the regions they intend to incorporate into Israel.

Barat: During my recent trip to Israel/Palestine it became obvious (talking to people, reading newspapers, watching the news) that something scared Israel a lot: a Boycott. Are you in favor of this type of actions and do you think that they could bare fruit?

Ilan Pappé: Yes I am and I do think it has a chance of triggering processes of change on the ground.

Noam Chomsky: Boycotts sometimes make sense. For example, such actions against South Africa were effective, even though the Reagan administration evaded congressional sanctions while declaring Mandela's ANC to be one of the "more notorious terrorist groups" in the world (in 1988). The actions were effective because the groundwork had been laid in many years of education and activism. By the time they were implemented, they received substantial support in the US within the political system, the media, and even the corporate sector. Nothing remotely like that has been achieved in this case. As a result, calls for boycott almost invariably backfire, reinforcing the harshest and most brutal policies towards Palestinians.

Selective boycotts, carefully formulated, might have some effect. For example, boycotts of military producers who provide arms to Israel, or to Caterpillar Corporation, which provides the equipment for destroying Palestine. All of their actions are strictly illegal, and boycotts could be made understandable to the general public, so that they could be effective. Selective boycotts could also be effective against states with a far worse record of violence and terror than Israel, such as the US. And, of course, without its decisive support and participation, Israel could not carry out illegal expansion and other crimes. There are no calls for boycotting the US, not for reasons of principle, but because it is simply too powerful -- facts that raise some obvious questions about the moral legitimacy of actions targeting its clients

Barat: Coming back from Israel/Palestine a few weeks ago, the director of ICAHD U.K said that, in spite of Annapolis, "not one thing on the ground has improved{...} witnessing Israel judaisation of the country left me feeling cold and angry". Seeing this, could Palestinian resistance (which has mainly been non violent so far) go back to an armed struggle and start the most brutal 3rd intifada?

Ilan Pappé: It is difficult to understand the 'could' - theoretically they can and they may, the question is whether it is going to produce different results from the previous two uprisings, the feeling is that it is not likely.

Noam Chomsky: My opinion all along has been that the Palestinian leadership is offering Israel and its US backers a great gift by resorting to violence and posturing about revolution -- quite apart from the fact that, tactical considerations aside, resort to violence carries a very heavy burden of justification. Today, for example, nothing is more welcome to Israeli and US hawks than Qassam rockets, which enable them to shriek joyously about how the ratio of deaths should be increased to infinity (all victims being defined as "terrorists"). I have also agreed all along with personal friends who had contacts with the Palestinian leadership (in particular, Edward Said and Eqbal Ahmad) that a non-violent struggle would have had considerable prospects for success. And I think it still does, in fact the only prospects for success.

Barat: What NGO's and charities working for justice in Palestine should focus on in the next few months?

Ilan Pappé: They know best and I hesitate to advise them. I think they gave us guidance with their call for boycott and if they continue with initiatives like this it can be very helpful. But most importantly it would be great if they could continue to work for reconciliation and unity in the Palestinian camp.

Noam Chomsky: The daily and urgent task is to focus on the terrible ongoing violations of the most elementary human rights and the illegal US-backed settlement and development projects that are designed to undermine a diplomatic settlement. A more general task is to try to lay the basis for a successful struggle for a settlement that takes into account the just demands of contesting parties -- the kind of hard, dedicated, persistent educational and organizational work that has provided the underpinnings for other advances towards peace and justice. I have already indicated what I think that entails -- not least, effective democracy promotion in the reigning superpower.

Frank Barat lives in London. He is a member of Palestine Solidarity Campaign London and ICAHD UK.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The West Bank village of Bil'in is one of very few instances where steadfast non-violent resistance, maintained jointly by Palestinians and Israelis, along with a petition to Israel's High Court of Justice, have achieved positive legal results. The High Court ruled in favor of the Palestinian petitioners, instructing the state and the military to re-route sections of the separation barrier appropriating much of the village land, on which private building companies have proceeded to construct an orthodox neighborhood. As reflected in earlier items selected and forwarded by Jewish Peace News, this court ruling remains unimplemented to date. (For more information see: http://www.bilin-village.org/).

Non-violent demonstrations therefore continue regularly in Bil'in, organized and attended by activists from Bil'in and its environs and from Israel.

As is the case throughout the Occupied Territories, Israeli forces regularly meet non-violent protesters with violent action. This systematic practice is clearly exemplified in the item below, issued by Jonathan Pollak, of "Anarchists against the Wall", one of the Israelis active in resisting the separation barrier and focusing on its forceful destruction of Bil'in.

The item below is an urgent call for blood donations needed for treatment of Ibrahim Bornat, a Palestinian activist from Bil'in, targeted by Israeli forces and wounded by live ammunition in last week's demonstration. It includes a link to video footage of Ibrahim's shooting.

For those interested in a more immediate sense of the ongoing struggle at Bil'in and, among other things, with the activist Bornat family whose son, Ibrahim now needs urgent blood donations, I suggest obtaining and viewing the film "Bil'in Habibti" (Bil'in My Love) filmed and directed by Shai Carmeli-Pollak (http://www.claudiusfilms.com/bilin.html).

Hello,Last Friday, during the weekly demonstration against the wall in Bil'in, soldiers opened fire on Ibrahim Bornat using live ammunition and hitting his right thigh. Ibrahim is son to Intessar and Wageeh and brother to Rani who was himself shot by an Israeli sniper eight years ago at a demonstration in Ramallah. The shot left him paralyzed from the neck down.

Ibrahim, a regular participant in the Bil'in demonstrations for the past three years, had already been injured numerous times, but this is the most serious one yet. The bullets that pierced his leg had ripped an artery and a vain and caused local nerve damage, of which the long term implications are still not clear.Resulting from the massive blood loss, Ibrahim was brought to the hospital unconscious and in critical condition. He was operated on for several hours, but still has no feeling in his right leg, at least temporarily.

During the operation Ibrahim was given numerous blood transfusions that saved his life, but he is still in constant need of AB+ blood transfusions at large quantities and have already received 11 counts.

Usually recipients of AB+ blood type can receive from any blood donor, but due to Ibrahim's harsh condition the doctors prefer the transfusions to be of the original blood type only.

If you will be willing to urgently donate blood for Ibrahim in Ramallah, and your blood type is AB+, please call Sarah at 0523991897

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Every year, when I get New Profile's annual report and read it, I'm truly amazed. --Partly because of the amount of work being done. But mostly, because of the nature of the work, and the process New Profile activists use in carrying it out. The kind of work NP does is truly of a radical nature - it goes to the deep deep roots of the militarization which underlies and props up the power structures and hegemonic Israeli culture.

At least as radical is the persistent effort to do the work by employing egalitarian, non-hierarchical modes, and the extensive efforts to incorporate youth work into what the organization does, and what the organization IS.

By way of disclosure - I'm connected to New Profile in personal and other ways - so what I'm saying isn't an attempt at "objective" evaluation (if such a thing exists), but rather of a very personal nature.

Every year different New Profile teams come together in order to produce our annual report. The first team gathers facts and figures of last year's activities from our members and compiles an outline in Hebrew. It is then given to another team which translates it into an English outline, A third team, using this outline, compiles the comprehensive English report which you now receive. The task, however cumbersome, is truly reflective of how New Profile functions as an organization and how we adhere to our organizational commitment of sharing responsibility and power.

At the time this report was being complied and written, New Profile was –and is still being - confronted with new challenges, some very complex and unexpected, and others that are integral part of a growing movement. Most notable is the present threat of being taken to High Court as our status as a nonprofit organization is being questioned.

New Profile is being accused of conducting acts of incitement by encouraging refusal to conscript. We face these charges because we provide information about draft refusal options to individuals who are considering not enlisting into the military. The charges are brought by the Parents Forum for an Equal Share of the Burden", the initiators of the campaign "A True Israeli does not Dodge the Draft". They demand that New Profile be closed down as a nonprofit organization and our members prosecuted for conducting illegal activities. Also named in the petition are the Fellowship Societies Registrar, and the Attorney General's office.

We are quite aware that this legal action against us may prove costly, both financially and in terms of work and emotions. We are confident that we will be able to turn to you in our hour of need.

Rest assured, these actions have not deterred us from our goals and we have created a counter campaign, "Think before Enlisting". This campaign reflects New Profile's ongoing efforts to create a new public discourse while encouraging critical thinking and emphasizes the movement's focus on the effects of militarism on society.

As we raise new questions and find occasion to introduce them into the mainstream discourse we also experience more attempts to keep us silent. We realize that this is to be expected especially when creating a new dialog that deals with questions of personal security, occupation and equality. We are not discouraged and cannot be deterred. We are actually witness to growing numbers of individuals and organizations contacting us in order to learn more about us and what we do.

This report not only reflects on the processes and activities within the organization but hopefully provide our readers with some insight into the present political and social climate in Israel.

Needless to say that none of this would have been possible without your ongoing encouragement and support. We are truly grateful.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

In his weekly column for Gush Shalom, veteran Israeli activist and commentator Uri Avnery wonders why Barack Obama should have given a speech at the AIPAC conference that, as Avneri describes it, "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning"; in particular, he revived support for a refusal of Palestinian sovereignty over Haram-al-Sharif /the Temple Mount.

It certainly seems to be a fact that practically every politician in the US feels the need not to make an enemy of AIPAC. And that this feeling seems justified by the apparent ease with which AIPAC has unseated candidates who, like Maxine Waters Cynthia McKinney, have displeased it. But why should this be? Avnery considers the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis, which points simply to the power and efficacy of the Israel lobby. He rightly detects some inconsistency there: after all corporate lobbies are just as well funded, but do not seem to attain the same identification of official US policy with their interests that AIPAC achieves.

Avnery instead suggests that there is a kind of psychic bind between the two countries because they are both settler states that displaced their native populations. This is certainly an interesting speculation, although it is probably right to be dubious about inferring foreign policy outcomes (like US support for Israel) from generalizations about national psyches. For one thing this covers over another quite plausible explanation: US elites already support a militarized and aggressive Israeli state as an instrument of their policy in West Asia, and this prior identification is the underlying reason why AIPAC is so successful: AIPAC is lobbying the government and telling it what it already wants to hear. One of the consequences of that success (at least on AIPAC's terms) is that the 'change' candidate in the US election may be just more 'business as usual'.

Alistair Welchman

-----

Lincoln Shensky adds:

Avnery does not mention some of the important context of Sen. Obama's comments: Obama was recently pilloried in Israel as an "appeaser" of terrorists by President Bush; meanwhile, Sen. Joe Lieberman has already, it seems, thrown his political weight behind John McCain's candidacy. In short, Obama is facing a real problem appealing to Jewish voters, Jewish donors, and conservative (even if Democratic) Israel supporters in general, and he rightly has his eye on the domestic electoral ball. Whatever the reasons for the ongoing US support of Israel's destructive hardline approach to the Palestinians (both Uri Avnery and JPN's Alistair Welchman make compelling cases for this synergy for different reasons), it is by no means clear that Obama's comments bear a reliable relation to what he would do if elected. And we can hardly be surprised by this, given the conspicuous track record of recent US presidents. Obama aims, above all, to get elected, and evaluating his comments about Israel andPalestine from within the politics of the region mistakes his purposes. His comments need not, indeed should not, be seen as a simple roadmap of an Obama Administration's future foreign policy.

-----

Joel Beinin adds:

Perhaps it's worth remembering that after a president gets elected once, he is then interested in getting re-elected. So if Obama thinks he has to (and perhaps he has to) do this to get elected, and if he is willing to do it, it indicates a either a streak of opportunism a mile wide or a strong degree of agreement with what he is saying. This doesn't make him any worse than any other candidate I'd be willing to vote for in this election (i.e. any Democrat). But it doesn't make him different or better, or a personal exemplar of the "change" he claims to advocate. It's worth remembering that Obama's personal hero is JFK, who sold Hawk missiles to Israel to retain the Jewish vote, launched the Bay of Pigs invasion, threatened to attack China over Quemoy and Matsu, and sent "advisors" to Vietnam. In short, there is a long history of this kind of politics in the US. It used to be called "Cold War liberalism." Now we need a new name.-----

Judith Norman and Racheli Gai add:

Jon Stewart had a hilarious and characteristically irreverent take on the candidates' fawning attitudes to AIPAC on the Daily Show. Without endorsing Stewart's particular opinion on the issue (or his questionable choice of terms), it is worth noting how remarkably blunt he is in his criticisms. Following the great tradition that only the jester can tell the truth to the king, it seems that only the comedian can criticize AIPAC in the mainstream media. But it is unclear whether the comedic form serves to neutralize and defuse the criticism, or whether it acts as a sort of Trojan horse for getting the criticisms aired at all.

AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday. The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.

The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.

WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?

The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.

Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.

True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.

But in a presidential race?

THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.

And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.

OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)

But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.

NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.

But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.

SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)

What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?

The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.

The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.

Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.

True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.

HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"